Attention High School students: Big Brother is watching you.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kanluwen**

"Redundant systems" being the keyword here.

If you're smart enough to disable/block the webcam--they've got the keylogger as background.

**garret**

block would work but disable no. they said they could turn them on remotly. Also if they used keylogging they would be in alot more trouble.

**Fateweaver**

Not to mention, ignoring the invasion of privacy thing; those laptops belong to the school. There is nothing illegal about tracing/tracking what you do with it. Wouldn't surprise me if MOST laptops for students have keyloggers installed. Average user won't know what to look for and most run hidden in the background so unless you look for one specifically you will never know it's there.

It's in bad form to use built in webcam to spy but I can MAYBE see the schools need to do so.

**Kanluwen**

No, they wouldn't.

Your parents don't get in trouble for keylogging software.

The only conceivable way they'd get in trouble for keylogging software is selling your protected information OR being proven to actually use it.

By the by, once again--the laptops are for educational purposes.

Not online shopping, not trolling 4chan, not hunting for porn.

Educational related activities and purposes.

**garret**

Then If they want that they could just provide a computer lab like my school does. my guess would be one of those labtop could buy 2 desktops. Then they could moniter them legally. You can get the same result.

**Miguelsan**

Kanluwen wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I would laugh so hard if they got child porn charges.

So would I, because it would be so completely idiotic for those charges to stick.

If a State (can´t remember where right now) managed to charge 3 minors with child pornography charges for sending naked photos of themselves to their boyfriends, why a school taking those same types of photos would be exempt?

M.

**garret**

But this is also a HUGE invasion of privacy. It could be considred spying. You are looking at what people are doing. not to mention what were they expecting to look for. Unless the webcam faces the screen they wont really be catching anything other the people typing or staring at the screen. Which as what i think thay were looking for vulger acts.

**Wrexasaur**

Dear lord garret, your grammar and spelling are freaking atrocious.

(Thay.... seriously garret... they, not thay)

While you are typing, PLEASE make use of the spellchecker. Nearly every single one of your posts has serious errors in it.

That aside though... I really can't say what reason they could have besides tracking stolen laptops with this technology. I also agree that expecting every single kid that uses one of these laptops, to use it for nothing but educational purposes is a bit silly. If that were the sole purpose, the alternative of a computer lab, with afterschool programs, sounds like an infinitely better application of funds.

**Kanluwen**

Miguelsan wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I would laugh so hard if they got child porn charges.

So would I, because it would be so completely idiotic for those charges to stick.

If a State (can´t remember where right now) managed to charge 3 minors with child pornography charges for sending naked photos of themselves to their boyfriends, why a school taking those same types of photos would be exempt?

M.

Pretty sure it was Pennsylvania, and that there was some issue with the presiding judge.

But that's a totally different set of circumstances.

One(the case you mentioned) was 3 minors sending out nude photographs of themselves had a proven intent to distribute naked photographs of minors(even if it IS themselves).

The other is the potential to, in the course of using a webcam to check up on a computer's location(which if they can in fact prove that whoever was in charge of the webcam monitoring was attempting to catch a minor in the act of masturbation or unclothed for sexual gratification purposes they MIGHT have a chance to make the CP charges stick) catch a student unclothed or in the act of masturbation.

It's all about context.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:But this is also a HUGE invasion of privacy. It could be considered spying. You are looking at what people are doing. Not to mention what were they expecting to look for. Unless the webcam faces the screen they wont really be catching anything other the people typing or staring at the screen. Which as what I think that they were looking for vulgar acts.

Hahaha.

There is so much wrong in this statement it's not even funny.

Spying is PURPOSEFULLY doing this to catch you kids(who, legally, can't even ACCESS pornography of any shape or form) in the act of masturbation, not just having the potential to do it.
And how often are you whacking it that you're worried about them doing random cam checks?

But either way, considering the stated purpose of the remote activation of laptop webcams was to recover lost or stolen laptops, it's a moot point.
The potential for abuse is there, but I'm sure they've got backstops in place to prevent misuse of the program.

**garret**

where in the world did it say the purpose of the cams were to activate them if they got stolen. I still stand by my statement.
Edit: for not flaming. sorry kanluwen

**Kanluwen**

http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137

Right there in black and white.

**garret**

Ok it did say that. But Did the student report it lost?
And if not why did they decide to activate it? And why did they punish the student for it if the intent is anti-theft.. This just seems fishy to me.

**Krak_kirby**

Whether or not its illegal what the school did, the court of public opinion is gonna crucify whoever is responsible in the school system. The rights of the school system to monitor their students stop at the school property line, or after the student gets off the bus. The fact that they put remote cameras in the home of every student and didn't tell anyone should make some litigiously inclined parents very wealthy indeed, and rightly so.

I think I may start looking for a countryland less inclined to big brother me...

**Kanluwen**

garret wrote:Ok it did say that. But Did the student report it lost?
And if not why did they decide to activate it? And why did they punish the student for it if the intent is anti-theft.. This just seems fishy to me.

If you found out, say by losing your laptop at some point, that the school would activate the webcam to find it...would you not get a great idea for a prank on a friend?

1) IM friend link to good adult erotica site.
2) Report laptop stolen.
3) Profit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Krak_kirby wrote:Whether or not its illegal what the school did, the court of public opinion is gonna crucify whoever is responsible in the school system. The rights of the school system to monitor their students stop at the school property line, or after the student gets off the bus. The fact that they put remote cameras in the home of every student and didn't tell anyone should make some litigiously inclined parents very wealthy indeed, and rightly so.

I think I may start looking for a countryland less inclined to big brother me...

Not so. The schools are responsible for the well-being of the students and the process of their education, period.

Sure, should they have warned the parents? Yeah.
However, it defeats the purpose of a remote security system if you announce it in the school newsletter.
Like the link said, laptops would be a huge target for any kids on campus of the five-fingered discount persuasion.

**Krak_kirby**

Even if they are playing games or surfing porn, the school system is not the morality police. If the price tag for a free laptop is this, I'll purchase my own thank you, and the school system can go to hell.

**Kanluwen**

Krak_kirby wrote:Even if they are playing games or surfing porn, the school system is not the morality police. If the price tag for a free laptop is this, I'll purchase my own thank you, and the school system can go to hell.

The school system is the morality police when THEY provide you their property.
They can dictate the usage of that property, just like most apartment rentals stipulate that you can't do anything to alter the property without express consent.

And either way, if you're under 18 and looking at porn and get caught by the school system?
They'd actually be well within rights to have the state prosecute for misrepresenting yourself(you're not 18 and click the "I'm 18+ and accept the terms & conditions" button? That's misrepresentation) and even go after your parents/caretakers for negligent care.

**garret**

Your digressing. The point is what they did was wrong. to install cams to look who stole the laptop is understandable kinda. But they looked when it wasnt stolen. And the point i would bet is that parent might not be all that mad if they gave a reason for the cams but thay didnt they hid it from them. Again it sounds fishy.

**Krak_kirby**

Not so. The schools are responsible for the well-being of the students and the process of their education, period.

Sure, should they have warned the parents? Yeah.
However, it defeats the purpose of a remote security system if you announce it in the school newsletter.
Like the link said, laptops would be a huge target for any kids on campus of the five-fingered discount persuasion.

The school system is legally responsible for the well being and education of a student while they are at school, at a school run event, or while they are being transported to or from school or an event by school district transportation. At any other time the school system has no responsibility, legal purview, control or rights over anyone.

**Kanluwen**

When you're using school equipment, yep. They've got a responsibility and control over what you can/can't do.

Or do you think public libraries should let you use the computers there for porn too?

And Garret...they don't HAVE to tell the parents a dang thing about the laptops they're loaning out. It's not the parents' OR the students' property.
It's the school's.

**Krak_kirby**

I'm starting to wonder if you just want to stir the pot, Kanluwen...

The library can certainly dictate acceptable behavior inside the library. The library cannot legally prosecute you if you check out a book or movie, take it home and masturbate, or dance around the living room with your underwear on your head, or whatever you do in the privacy of your own home. Neither can the school system, or the police, or anybody else.

You are correct that they could potentially nab a person under the age of 18 surfing porn, and take a snapshot of them in flagrante delicto. That would of course require them to admit that they had been illegally monitoring via camera and microphone the inside of someone's home. Which is the worse offense? They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

**Kanluwen**

Once again--

The laptops are NOT your property. You return them at the end of every semester(IF the program they're doing is the same as the one that my school did at that level).

Still not seeing any problem in dictating how you use it.

**Krak_kirby**

And again I say, if that's the price for a free laptop, no thank you. And I'm guessing this particular student did not get in trouble for stealing a computer, but something "MORALITY" related, which is outside the purview of the school systems belatedly revealed, hidden agenda.

I so wish it had happened to me. I could use several tens of thousands of dollars...

**Kanluwen**

And once again, if he got into trouble for something "morality" related--there's a good chance his friends set him up for it as a prank.

**Commander Endova**

There are tons of other ways this system could result in inappropriate pictures of minors.

As a rather TMI example, I had my own bathroom in my room growing up, and I left my computer on a desk in my room. Had it been one of these laptops, that's potentially spying every time I stripped down to take a shower. I'm sure I'm not the only kid that had that.

I could go on. Laptop in the same room where the kids beats it to naked pygmies in National Geographic, which we all did. Don;t lie. Laptop in room where two 16 year olds get freaky, which is completely legal in some states.

Anyway you look at it, situations do exist where a minor would be legally and justifiably nude in the presence of one of these laptops.

And who knows what the use is? Sure, officially the point is so the school can stick its nose in everyone's business, (ignoring the fact that it has no right to do so,) but you don't know that the person doing the monitoring isn't actually some sicko getting some trouser tension from 'accidentally' flipping on Little Suzie's webcam when she changes into her jammies.

**Orkeosaurus**

Wikipedia wrote:Intrusion of solitude and seclusion
Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings' acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages.

Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary.”[6]

That the computers are owned by the school is irrelevant. The only thing that matters was whether the court finds the students to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when alone in their rooms on the computer and whether activating the webcams was an intrusion upon that.

I can't rent an apartment out to a woman, put a hidden camera in her shower, and be immune to prosecution on account of owning the shower. It's still an intrusion of privacy because there is no reasonable expectation of there being active cameras placed there. The same concept applies here. The school can absolutely be held liable, and I predict they'll either win or settle for a decent amount.

Pornography has nothing to do with it either. Masturbating in front of a computer doesn't prove you're looking at pornography, nor would it matter if it did, as the intrusion is being carried beyond use of the computer in any case. If they want to trace websites viewed, that's unrelated to what is being brought to court.

**Commander Endova**

Right. Besides, in comparison, whats the max sentence a minor can get for looking at pornography? It's going to be nothing compared to what the actual criminals here will get.

**Orkeosaurus**

The case appears constrained to the civil courts at the moment.

**Kanluwen**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:Intrusion of solitude and seclusion
Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings' acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages.

Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary.”[6]
That the computers are owned by the school is irrelevant. The only thing that matters was whether the court finds the students to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when alone in their rooms on the computer and whether activating the webcams was an intrusion upon that.

I can't rent an apartment out to a woman, put a hidden camera in her shower, and be immune to prosecution on account of owning the shower. It's still an intrusion of privacy because there is no reasonable expectation of there being active cameras placed there. The same concept applies here. The school can absolutely be held liable, and I predict they'll either win or settle for a decent amount.

Pornography has nothing to do with it either. Masturbating in front of a computer doesn't prove you're looking at pornography, nor would it matter if it did, as the intrusion is being carried beyond use of the computer in any case. If they want to trace websites viewed, that's unrelated to what is being brought to court.

But then there's another issue from EXACTLY what you quoted:

You need to prove that whoever flipped the switch to turn the camera on did it for the purpose of actually intruding upon the minor's privacy and wasn't doing it because of being told to turn on the wrong camera, or a student misplaced their laptop at a friend's house and it caught something it shouldn't have, or any number of things.

The only real way I'd support any kind of legislation against this particular circumstance is this:
1) There can be a proven case of intent to intrude upon the minor's privacy
2) If this case gets dragged into a child pornography case, then there has to be a proven intent to distribute or document the minor in potentially erotic situations for self-gratification or the intent for sexual arousal of others.
3) There's no kind of monitoring system in place 'watching' whoever it is in charge of the webcam feeds.

#3 being the absolutely most important one. IF the school system failed to have something in place to catch the operators of the webcam security feeds potentially intruding on the minors themselves, that's a pretty big feth up on their part.
At the very least, there needs to be some form of automated log recording when the webcam is accessed on both the laptop AND whatever computers are used by the school to monitor the laptops.

**Emperors Faithful**

I agree with Kanluwen to the extent that I believe that the school had every right to install the spy system in the laptops. It mkaes sense after all, they don't want kids whacking off to whatever (be it Brunettes or Naked Pygmies...

) and it would definitely come in handy in the case of stolen or lost laptops.

However, I do think that they should have at least told the people who they were giving it to about the system. The knowledge alone that one might be being watched should be enough to act as a detterent to any unsavoury behaviour.

Also, with this webcam pic, would the school have any idea whether he was actually looking at something inaproppriate? Do they have the info of what site he's visiting on thier screen? I mean, this kid could have been jacking off to pictures of Gremlins or Sean Connery.

**Ahtman**

Do students have an expectation of privacy while on school grounds and using school equipment?